You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Surgical Therapy IV1 Apr 2015MP38-07 COMPARISON OF FLEXIBLE URETERORENOSCOPIC LITHOTRIPSY AND RETROPERITONEAL LAPAROSCOPIC URETEROLITHOTOMY FOR TREATMENT OF UNILATERAL LARGE (>15 MM) UPPER URETERAL STONE: A SIX YEAR RETROSPECTIVE STUDY Volkan Tugcu, Selcuk Sahin, Arda Atar, Ramazan Kocakaya, Mithat Eksi, and Ali Tasci Volkan TugcuVolkan Tugcu More articles by this author , Selcuk SahinSelcuk Sahin More articles by this author , Arda AtarArda Atar More articles by this author , Ramazan KocakayaRamazan Kocakaya More articles by this author , Mithat EksiMithat Eksi More articles by this author , and Ali TasciAli Tasci More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.1382AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES There are multiple treatment alternative for the management of large, upper ureteral stone. In this retrospective trial, we compared laparoscopic retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy (L-RU) and flexible ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy (F-URS). METHODS Between January 2007 to December 2013, 103 patients underwent L-RU (Group 1) and 80 patients F-URS (Group 2). Indications for the operations were single obstructive or impacted upper ureteral stone, stone size >15 mm. The following parameters of two groups were compared: success rate, auxillary procedure, operative time, blood loss, transfusion rates, duration of analgesia, postoperative pain, hospitalization time, and time to return to normal activities. RESULTS No statistically significant difference in preoperative parameter was found between the two groups except for BMI and stone size. The success rate in a single session of Group 1 (100%) was higher than that of Group 2 (87,5%) (p<00.5). There were 11 auxillary procedures needed in 10 patinets in Group 2. Operative time in Group 1 was significantly shorter than Group 2 (p<0.0001). Duration of analgesia, VAS score, hospital stay, time to return to normal activities in Group 1 was significantly higher than Group 2. CONCLUSIONS For large upper ureteral stones, L-RU and F-URS are safe and effective treatment techniques. Our data showed an advantage of L-RU in high stone clearance rate in a single procedure, lower retreatment rate and shorter operative time compared with F-URS. Table 1. Patient demograhics and preoperative characterictics Laparoscopy (n:103) F URS (n:80) p Mean age (year) 39,9±12,02 40,71±10,22 0,630 Male/Female 73/30 55/25 1 Mean BMI (kg/m2) 25,42±2,5 27,9±1,75 0,0001 Stone size (mm) 21,08±4,49 18,49±3,35 0,0001 Stone side (right/left) 53/50 43/37 0,865 Mean HU CT attenuation 1185,79±140,69 1213,65±224,68 0,306 Table 2. Operative and postoperative data Laparoscopy (n:103) F URS (n:80) p Mean operation time (minute) 65,47±10,92 75±11,56 0,0001 Success rate in a single session (%) 100 87,5 <0.05 Duration of analgesia (day) 4,1±0,86 2,98±1,27 0,0001 VAS 0 5,82±1 4,84±1,43 0,0001 VAS 1 3,88±0,94 3,3±1,28 0,0001 Mean hospital stay (day) 2,94±0,91 1,34±1,37 0,0001 Return to normal activity (day) 8,71±2,17 7,26±0,78 0,0001 Auxilary procedure - 11 (13,75%) Intraoperative DJ insertion 30 45 0,004 Table 3. Complications according to Clavien grading system Complication L-RU (n:103) F-URS (n:80) Action p Clavien grade 1 Ileus 2 - Observation Renal colic 2 4 Analgesics Mucosal injury - 5 Intraoperative ureteral stent placement Ureteral perforation - 1 Intraoperative ureteral stent placement Abdominal distention caused by peritoneal rupture 1 - Observation Subcutaneous emphysema 1 - Observation Clavien grade 2 Fever 2 7 Antibiotics, antipyretics Clavien grade 3a Urinary leak 2 - Ureteral stent placement Clavien grade 3b Ureteral stricture 1 1 Ureteral dilatation + ureteral stent placement Clavien grade 4 Sepsis - 1 ICU referral Total complication 11 19 0,03 Minor complication 8 17 0,016 Major complication 3 2 0,865 © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 193Issue 4SApril 2015Page: e448-e449 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Volkan Tugcu More articles by this author Selcuk Sahin More articles by this author Arda Atar More articles by this author Ramazan Kocakaya More articles by this author Mithat Eksi More articles by this author Ali Tasci More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...